Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

Well by not prosecuting Bush on War Crimes, Wall Street, BP Oil, etc... and increasing prosecutions on Medical Marijuana, then yeah he is shifting more power to a few by allowing them to push their profits and agenda without consequences.

You thought that instead of focusing on the economic crisis and finally achieving healthcare reform, Obama should have wasted the very little goodwill he was given in order to drag out an investigation into the Bush administration on war crimes? Okay.

Not really his legal team is actively trying to keep that part of the bill in. He wants it... you just choose to believe his rhetoric.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-fights-for-the-ndaa-2012-9

Did you not read what I wrote? Where I specifically mentioned the part of Obama's administration appealing that particular section? Good. Just making sure we're on the same page.

 

[Foothills]

Why? The NDAA? Gitmo? Both of those situations have asterisks on them in terms of the ability of the President to veto or dissolve that's more complicated than a Reddit drive by post.

Obama's choice to appeal and defend the most controversial part of the NDAA is disconcerning. But it's more complicated than "Gitmo is open, the NDAA is signed, Obama hates civil liberties"

how about outdoing bush on warrantless wiretapping, and siding with the house over the senate sponsored amendments from his own party?

"As part of its concerted campaign to prosecute whistleblowers and to classify state secrets, the Obama administration has taken a position in Clapper that makes the Bush administration pro-secrecy campaign seem pale in comparison: namely, that no one can challenge warrantless surveillance unless the government tells you in advance that you’re being surveilled—which national security interests prevent it from doing. When Bush administration offered milder versions of the same arguments, the civil liberties community rose up in protest. Verrilli, for his part, was met by vigorous skepticism from the Supreme Court’s liberal justices."

To make matters worse, the Obama administration has refused to support the Congressional reforms that could ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance respects the constitutional limitations. In July, the Senator Judiciary Committee approved on a party line vote Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal to require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a thorough review of how the new surveillance authorities are being used, and to make public an unclassified summary of his findings. Leahy would also require the intelligence community to report more extensively about the use of surveillance authorities, to ensure that it’s complying with privacy and minimization procedures. The House, however, recently approved the reauthorization of the surveillance authorities without these new reporting requirements, and the administration is taking the side of the Republican House rather than the Democratic Senate. “The White House wants these authorities renewed without any modifications, and the House Republicans, who one day are trying to impeach Eric Holder, the next day are agreeing with the Obama Justice Department to renew this act without any changes,” says Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10935...a-administrations-circular-logic-wiretapping#

 

[Tristam]

Source? This is completely false. Listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLDzDklTRU

Also let me fix that for you...

Uh, what oversight of Wall Street firms do you think Paul proposes when his mantra is to eliminate nearly every agency of the federal government?

Ron Paul thinks the government has virtually no business regulating business. Ron Paul thinks tort litigation should replace environmental regulation. He'd be BP's best friend.

Also, this. Paul has said that global warming is a hoax. I'm sure that squares well with the Green Party's platform.

 

[Journeywalker]

Nice post.

I hate to do this, but I have to call you out on this:

You just did precisely what you complain about in this thread--that people find the ideas that they agree with and then echo them, while ignoring other valid points. A thread with multiple echo chambers is better, I guess, but not by much.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Polls in NH have Obama & Romney tied at 47%. Mitt was right. 47% won't vote him.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

what is going here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

 

[Dude Abides]

It's true that Obama is pretty terrible on executive power issues - it's not in the nature of executive authority to limit its own power. The proper place for intervention on that issue is the courts and the Congress, not fringe Presidential candidates.

 

[Karma Kramer]

You thought that instead of focusing on the economic crisis and finally achieving healthcare reform, Obama should have wasted the very little goodwill he was given in order to drag out an investigation into the Bush administration on war crimes? Okay.

Yeah it would have improved our situation with the Middle East and it would have allowed the American people to move on from those 8 years. The law must be uphold so that the American people and the World knows that we don't treat individuals differently. It's our basic core belief as a country. Wall Street, BP as well.

Fuck Obama ran on this shit before he won....

"the era of scooter libby justice… will be over"
"no more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient that is not who we are"
"We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary"

The American people WANTED him to do this

 

[Foothills]

It's true that Obama is pretty terrible on executive power issues - it's not in the nature of executive authority to limit its own power. The proper place for intervention on that issue is the courts and the Congress, not fringe Presidential candidates.

that's a great way to let people off the hook and not hold them responsible for their bullshit

 

[ivysaur12]

how about outdoing bush on warrantless wiretapping, and siding with the house over the senate sponsored amendments from his own party?

"As part of its concerted campaign to prosecute whistleblowers and to classify state secrets, the Obama administration has taken a position in Clapper that makes the Bush administration pro-secrecy campaign seem pale in comparison: namely, that no one can challenge warrantless surveillance unless the government tells you in advance that you’re being surveilled—which national security interests prevent it from doing. When Bush administration offered milder versions of the same arguments, the civil liberties community rose up in protest. Verrilli, for his part, was met by vigorous skepticism from the Supreme Court’s liberal justices."

To make matters worse, the Obama administration has refused to support the Congressional reforms that could ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance respects the constitutional limitations. In July, the Senator Judiciary Committee approved on a party line vote Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposal to require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to conduct a thorough review of how the new surveillance authorities are being used, and to make public an unclassified summary of his findings. Leahy would also require the intelligence community to report more extensively about the use of surveillance authorities, to ensure that it’s complying with privacy and minimization procedures. The House, however, recently approved the reauthorization of the surveillance authorities without these new reporting requirements, and the administration is taking the side of the Republican House rather than the Democratic Senate. “The White House wants these authorities renewed without any modifications, and the House Republicans, who one day are trying to impeach Eric Holder, the next day are agreeing with the Obama Justice Department to renew this act without any changes,” says Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/10935...a-administrations-circular-logic-wiretapping#

Sure. Yet it is the liberal wing of the court -- including those nominated by Obama -- who generally oppose these measures.

If you are seriously concerned about civil liberties (and everyone should), the best thing to do would be to vote for a Democrat president who will nominated liberal-minded judges to the SCOTUS.

Yeah it would have improved our situation with the Middle East and it would have allowed the American people to move on from those 8 years. The law must be uphold so that the American people and the World knows that we don't treat individuals differently. It's our basic core belief as a country. Wall Street, BP as well.

Fuck Obama ran on this shit before he won....



The American people WANTED him to do this

God, no. It would have dragged us into a lengthy and ugly process that would have divided the country even further. You can't actually believe this is something that would have been actively cheered by the vast majority of the country, can you?

 

[el retorno]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

hahaha

 

[NullPointer]

that's a great way to let people off the hook and not hold them responsible for their bullshit

Voting third party on tuesday is much better.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I hate to do this, but I have to call you out on this:

You just did precisely what you complain about in this thread--that people find the ideas that they agree with and then echo them, while ignoring other valid points. A thread with multiple echo chambers is better, I guess, but not by much.

I simply said "nice post" ... I was complaining about people being so fixated on the polls rather than the issues.

 

[Foothills]

Sure. Yet it is the liberal wing of the court -- including those nominated by Obama -- who generally oppose these measures.

If you are seriously concerned about civil liberties (and everyone should), the best thing to do would be to vote for a Democrat president who will nominated liberal-minded judges to the SCOTUS.

"ignore all the terrible things i'm personally responsible for on this important issue because side benefits". how about real accountability instead of hypocrisy and cheering the tallest midget?

 

[gutter_trash]

to Ron Paul supporters invading thread:

 

[Dude Abides]

Yeah it would have improved our situation with the Middle East and it would have allowed the American people to move on from those 8 years. The law must be uphold so that the American people and the World knows that we don't treat individuals differently. It's our basic core belief as a country. Wall Street, BP as well.

Fuck Obama ran on this shit before he won....



The American people WANTED him to do this

When I canvassed in rural PA in a county that McCain ended up winning by 25 votes, I did not hear one voter talk about Scooter Libby, the rule of law, or abuse of authority in the name of national security. The sad fact is this stuff only matters to a very small portion of the public.

 

[kaching]

Yeah it would have improved our situation with the Middle East and it would have allowed the American people to move on from those 8 years.

Turn Bush into a martyr? Why, that's a GREAT way for us to move on!

 

[Foothills]

to Ron Paul supporters invading thread:
[IG]http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833011570259b60970b-500wi[/IMG]

non sequitur bullshit that nobody is arguing in this thread. how about responding to substantive posts about real civil liberties?

 

[ivysaur12]

"ignore all the terrible things i'm personally responsible for on this important issue because side benefits". how about real accountability instead of hypocrisy and cheering the tallest midget?

Real accountability is nominating judges to the Supreme Court who will fight for civil liberties and civil rights. The easiest way to accomplish this is to elect a Democrat who will nominate liberal-minded judges. The next step is to change the mind of the electorate over time.

Want to get rid of Citizens? Get rid of Scalia and Thomas and achieve PRACTICAL REFORM.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Let's stop talking about Ron Paul... as I said I only supported him during the debates because he is uniquely different than Obama and had no chance in the national election BUT he would have brought some important issues facing America. Romney hasn't brought any valid arguments/ideas to the table. I mean seriously guys... stop trying to derail valid criticisms against your guy by trying to turn this into some kind of Ron Paul thing.

 

[Kusagari]

Nobody, including Ron Paul, would have tried Bush for war crimes.

Ridiculous to even bring up.

 

[Dude Abides]

that's a great way to let people off the hook and not hold them responsible for their bullshit

It's also true. Do you have an actual argument that it isn't or is this just fallacy day all around?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Turn Bush into a martyr? Why, that's a GREAT way for us to move on!

What? He committed war crimes that violated international law under the Geneva convention. Do you think the 100,000 of innocent lives he contributed to killing should be a free pass because of some bullshit political game?

Bush can't even visit certain countries because they have a warrant for his arrest.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's also true. Do you have an actual argument that it isn't or is this just fallacy day all around?

Let him go to Reddit first to find it.

What? He committed war crimes that violated international law. Do you think the 100,000 of innocent lives he contributed to killing should be a free pass because of some bullshit political game?

Yet you say this is how we will move on, what the country is asking for... It wouldn't and it isn't. In fact, it would have divided us unlike anything in the past century.

No serious presidential candidate, including Ron Paul, would have done this for those specific reasons.

 

[PantherLotus]

Subbed. Predicted 320+ for Obama during the Republican primaries. I'll stick with that, though I think it'll be closer to 310 now.

 

[Foothills]

Real accountability is nominating judges to the Supreme Court who will fight for civil liberties and civil rights. The easiest way to accomplish this is to elect a Democrat. The next step is to change the mind of the electorate over time.

Want to get rid of Citizens? Get rid of Scalia and Thomas and achieve PRACTICAL REFORM.

who was even talking about the citizens decision? we were talking about holding obama accountable for pissing on the face of his own party with respect to executive privilege that he has the actual power to change through legislative leadership (a key role of the chief executive) and executive power.

Let him go to Reddit first to find it.

what the fuck does this even mean

 

[gutter_trash]

What? He committed war crimes that violated international law under the Geneva convention. Do you think the 100,000 of innocent lives he contributed to killing should be a free pass because of some bullshit political game?

Bush can't even visit certain countries because they have a warrant for his arrest.

a sitting President will never go after past ex-Presidents because it would set a precedent that future Presidents will start punished past ex-Presidents and the cycle will go vrooom vroom vroooom

 

[ivysaur12]

who was even talking about the citizens decision? we were talking about holding obama accountable for pissing on the face of his own party with respect to executive privilege that he has the actual power to change through legislative leadership (a key role of the chief executive) and executive power.

The first drive-by 3rd party post today was about corportism in politics. Citizens = corportism.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Nobody, including Ron Paul, would have tried Bush for war crimes.

Ridiculous to even bring up.

Switzerland would if Bush entered their country.

Or Canada... or most of the western European Union.

 

[Foothills]

The first drive-by 3rd party post today was about corportism in politics. Citizens = corportism.

corpor(a)tism? you and I were purportedly having a discussion, what lead you to bringing up what someone else said hours ago in an unrelated discussion?

 

[Jackben]

-

 

[NullPointer]

What? He committed war crimes that violated international law under the Geneva convention. Do you think the 100,000 of innocent lives he contributed to killing should be a free pass because of some bullshit political game?

Bush can't even visit certain countries because they have a warrant for his arrest.

Trying to achieve forward progress in a system that forces you to act within a system of various real-world powers and interests, many of whom seek to shut you down, and many others that either don't care or only seek to advance their own issues is more than a bullshit game.

You can't get everything you want, and you have to choose not only what is most important, but what you can also achieve, and how much buy-in you can get from a diverse set of interests.

Its rants like this that come across to me as if the President had ultimate power, or that its supposedly painfully obvious that most Americans agree with putting your issues above all others. Thats not how it works.

 

[Dude Abides]

who was even talking about the citizens decision? we were talking about holding obama accountable for pissing on the face of his own party with respect to executive privilege that he has the actual power to change through legislative leadership (a key role of the chief executive) and executive power.



what the fuck does this even mean

Hold him accountable by voting for Stein? If Mitt Romney wins the message will not be "shit we lost because we were bad on civil liberties." Progressive pressure has to come from organization at the local and primary levels, not by casting a protest vote once every four years.

 

[gutter_trash]

Switzerland would if Bush entered their country.

Or Canada... or most of the western European Union.

Canada? LOL hahahahaahha never would Canada do such a thing, rose colored glasses impression of Canada you have

 

[Karma Kramer]

a sitting President will never go after past ex-Presidents because it would set a precedent that future Presidents will start punished past ex-Presidents and the cycle will go vrooom vroom vroooom

lol wow

I can't believe people actually support defending Bush, Wall Street, BP...

 

[Zen]

Canada? LOL hahahahaahha never would Canada do such a thing, rose colored glasses impression of Canada you have

False equivalency.

 

[gutter_trash]

lol wow

I can't believe people actually support defending Bush, Wall Street, BP...

what would stop Jeb Bush from going after Obama's drone attacks if Obama went after George W for Iraq?

you are perpetuating a vicious cycle of none sense

 

[Foothills]

Hold him accountable by voting for Stein? If Mitt Romney wins the message will not be "shit we lost because we were bad on civil liberties." Progressive pressure has to come from organization at the local and primary levels, not by casting a protest vote once every four years.

I'm not sure where you can point to anything i said about voting for a third party in the presidential election to be the way to create civil liberties accountability. perhaps you could point me to where i did.

pointing out selective hypocrisy from the left and the right in deference to their "team" is accountability, and there should be more of it. you disagree, great, we both have our opinions. shame only one of us can be honest though.

 

[Emerson]

I can never remember, what time is the election usually decided/called by networks?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Trying to achieve forward progress in a system that forces you to act within a system of various real-world powers and interests, many of whom seek to shut you down, and many others that either don't care or only seek to advance their own issues is more than a bullshit game.

You can't get everything you want, and you have to choose not only what is most important, but what you can also achieve, and how much buy-in you can get from a diverse set of interests.

Its rants like this that come across to me as if the President had ultimate power, or that its supposedly painfully obvious that most Americans agree with putting your issues above all others. Thats not how it works.

You would have a point if Obama hasn't continued torture and acts of aggression aka war crimes in Pakistan / Afghanistan. So the real reason has more to do with Obama not being able to pursue the things he has if he went after Bush because Obama has committed War Crimes himself. That's why people laugh about him winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Karma Kramer]

what would stop Jeb Bush from going after Obama's drone attacks if Obama went after George W for Iraq?

you are perpetuating a vicious cycle of none sense

No, I'm pretty sure the people who vote in the two party duopolies are perpetuating that.

 

[2MF]

You would have a point if Obama hasn't continue torture and acts of aggression aka war crimes in Pakistan / Afghanistan. So the real reason has more to do with Obama not being able to pursue the things he has if he went after Bush because Obama has committed War Crimes himself. That's why people laugh about him winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

This. This election is truly a battle between two turds, although Obama may be overall less of a turd... maybe.

 

[Steelrain]

-

That about sums it up.

 

[ivysaur12]

corpor(a)tism? you and I were purportedly having a discussion, what lead you to bringing up what someone else said hours ago in an unrelated discussion?

Typos are the lowest common denominator towards internet discussion, especially for someone who is dyslexic. So thanks.

The discussion I've always been having has been about how to defend civil liberties. If you want to have clear, easy change towards expanding civil liberties, the best thing you can do is vote of a Democrat who will nominates liberals to the court.

The next thing you can do is work within the system to change the electorate to allow for a true progressive to be elected. This is tougher. I'm not defending Obama's civil liberties record, but I'm also not opposed to voting for him because the mark he leaves on the SCOTUS will outlast any of his civil liberty policies.

 

[Tristam]

Let's stop talking about Ron Paul... as I said I only supported him during the debates because he is uniquely different than Obama and had no chance in the national election BUT he would have brought some important issues facing America. Romney hasn't brought any valid arguments/ideas to the table. I mean seriously guys... stop trying to derail valid criticisms against your guy by trying to turn this into some kind of Ron Paul thing.

I'm taking you to task because, with few exceptions, you are an apparently ardent supporter of things Ron Paul vehemently opposes. When you're calling on supporters of Obama to open their eyes to the injustices of regulatory capture, poverty, and halfway health care reform, a paean to Paul comes across as incoherent, fuck-the-system baloney.

 

[heliosRAzi]

This. This election is truly a battle between two turds, although Obama may be overall less of a turd... maybe.

No, he's definitely less of a turd. There is no argument to be had about it. I voted Green this go around and I would still prefer Bronco Bamma over Mitt.

 

[Journeywalker]

I simply said "nice post" ... I was complaining about people being so fixated on the polls rather than the issues.

Oh...then the point that was made earlier is much more appropriate: expecting to have a conversation about non-election issues in PoliGAF 28 hours before an election is very...optimistic. The candidates have already made their positions clear, it's count'n time.

 

[jgwhiteus]

I can never remember, what time is the election usually decided/called by networks?

I think for the 2008 election it was called at EDIT: 8 PM PST / 11 PM EST - by that point Obama had already taken several key states (e.g. Pennsylvania), and 8 PM PST was when the polls closed on the west coast (California, Oregon and Washington), and their remaining electoral votes could be counted in Obama's column. (I don't think any actual counting was done at that point, but there was no question the states' votes would go to him).

I think after 2000 or 2004 or something the networks agreed not to call any states for either candidate using exit polls until voting had officially closed, so they wouldn't dissuade anyone who saw the state being called but hadn't voted yet.

EDIT: Above only applies if there's a clear Electoral College victory - if you have a close election like 2000, where everyone waited on Florida, or it's a very tight race that requires recounts, etc., then of course you wait longer.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I'm taking you to task because, with few exceptions, you are an apparently ardent supporter of things Ron Paul vehemently opposes. When you're calling on supporters of Obama to open their eyes to the injustices of regulatory capture, poverty, and halfway health care reform, a paean to Paul comes across as incoherent, fuck-the-system baloney.

I supported Paul as a GOP Nominee not as President. Can we move on from this now? I would support Gary Johnson over Obama and he's a Libertarian but I support Jill Stein because she is MOST alligned with my beliefs.

 

[kaching]

What? He committed war crimes that violated international law under the Geneva convention. Do you think the 100,000 of innocent lives he contributed to killing should be a free pass because of some bullshit political game?

Regardless of what Bush is guilty of, trying him for it would not have been any better a way for this country to move on. It would have been the surest way to get the Republican party and its constituents to circle the wagons around the guy, rather than throw him under the bus like they've done instead. We'd likely be even less moved on than we are now.